New Jersey police officer Robert Melia Jr. will not face criminal charges for allegedly having sex with five calves under a perfectly bizarre ruling by Judge James J. Morley. We previously discussed the case, here. Morley dismissed animal cruelty charges on the grounds that the cows may have enjoyed having sex with Melia.
Morley ruled that oral sex with cows cannot constitute animal cruelty since the cows aren’t talking and may not have been “tormented” or “puzzled” by the experience.
In a simply amazing exchange with prosecutors, Morley went into the uncertainties of man-cow relations: “If the cow had the cognitive ability to form thought and speak, would it say, ‘Where’s the milk? I’m not getting any milk,'” You are allowed to drop your coffee in amazement at this point.
Morley went on to explain that children are comforted by pacifiers and perhaps cows are equally pacified by police officers in these cases: “They [children] enjoy the act of suckling,” the judge said. “Cows may be of a different disposition.” You are allowed to throw up in disgust at this point.
Morley ignored that one cow head-butted Melia in the stomach and appeared far from happy. The prosecutor objected that the cows were “very upset” by Melia’s action and stated “I think any reasonable juror could infer that a man’s penis in the mouth of a calf is torment. It’s a crime against nature.” The problem is that New Jersey does not currently have a ban on bestiality as opposed to animal cruelty.
Morley did note “I’m not saying it’s OK. This is a legal question for me. It’s not a questions of morals. It’s not a question of hygiene. It’s not a question of how people should conduct themselves.” That is reassuring. However, since the cows can never complain about sexual abuse, Morley’s view would effectively end cruelty prosecutions absent physical injury. While “no means no,” “moo” means nothing in Morley’s court. Any defendant could use the Morley defense of “the cows enjoyed it.”
Melia is currently on suspension from the force in Moorestown. His girlfriend, Heather Lewis, is also accused in a case alleging sexual assault on three young girls. Child pornography was also allegedly found in his home.
Lewis is also accused of sexually assaulting a juvenile male.
Not does it defame “Jersey” cows everywhere, but Morley’s ruling gives Moorestown the unique claim to fame as the new vacation spot of choice for the bestiality set (New slogan: “You Can’t Say Moorestown Without Moo.”). I simply cannot understand the judge’s reasoning. While Melia will likely be put away on the other charges, Morley has created some disturbing precedent in this ruling that needs to be appealed by the prosecutors.
A man in Mumbai was less lucky with his judge. He claimed that he could not be charged with having sex with a dog because the dog could not swear out a complaint, here. The court rejected the claim.
This is the first line of an article at Huffington Post TODAY, Your “Honor”:
Staten Islander Anthony Taylor was arrested Wednesday for traveling to Pennsylvania with the intent of having sex with a woman and her 14-month-old child.
Read more at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/09/24/anthony-taylor-man-arrest_n_298535.html
One wonders how this judge would evaluate the cognitive level of the 14 month old in order to determine whether this sick piece of sh** broke a law?
One might also wonder if the tortured logic wasn’t because the perp was a cop. Considering the circus of sexual deviation Melia and his girlfriend had going on one might hope this decision isn’t foreshadowing of rulings to come.
If child porn was found in his home is he not a responsible party for that offense? Can he not be arrested for that? This ruling does allow melia to proceed to court on possibily a child porn charge and say he had no prior convictions. That right there is a plus for him if he is arrested/tried for child porn.
Officer Melia and Judge Morley, please call.
National Association for Man Cow Love Affairs
“Where is our friend, mr. ed, when you need him?’
Ain’t snitchin’ but Mr.Ed and Wilbur have been out tae da barn since the break of morn’ after pitchforkin’ some new mowed hay in stanchion #69. HorseFeathers!
To Dave:
I’m swayed by Professor Turley’s reasoning when he writes the following: “…Morley’s view would effectively end cruelty prosecutions absent physical injury. While ‘no means no,’ ‘moo’ means nothing in Morley’s court. Any defendant could use the Morley defense of ‘the cows enjoyed it.'”
This case clearly needs to be sent to Rick ‘Man-on-dog” Santorum for final disposition.
This too is a form of deviance and sexual paraphilia…
Elaine,
While I agree that the decision must ultimately rest with the judge (he is appointed, after all, to make such rulings), I don’t think it was a particularly bizarre ruling. His reasoning may have been unorthodox, but this is not a lone case. There are many instances where bestiality crimes cannot be upheld due to the prosecution’s inability to say just what crime has been committed.
Animal cruelty is despicable and should be punished, but, as I said, there are many instances where bestiality has been found to be not animal cruelty, but rather an innocent (if strange) form of sex. There are even countries where one can marry an animal!
It’s interesting to note that while we decry sex with animals, we are more than happy to slaughter them for food (and sport and fashion). It reminds me of a case I once read: a voodoo practitioner bought a goat and ritually slaughtered it in his own home. When tried, the judge noted that he nothing more unusual than what farmers do every day, and he was let off.
While we should be vigilant against genuine animal cruelty, I think people are seeing crime where none exists. Animals have limited communicative abilities, so we have to make a judgement call somewhere.
Getting it on with farm animals! sick man, really sick…
When Old MacDonald found out what was going on with the cop and the calves on his farm, he exclaimed: E-I-E-I-O MY GOD!
Where is our friend, mr. ed, when you need him? Certainly he has a perspective far different from ours on this topic, and he’s hoof out a mean arithmetic, too.
Mel – i – a.
I just met a guy named Mel – i – a.
And suddenly the name
Will never be the same again.
Mel – i – a.
Say is softly and its almost like praying.
Say it loud and its like music playing.
Mel – i – a.
I’ll never stop saying Mel – i – a.
(c) Carnation Contented Cows Chorus, all rts. rsrvd.
Former Federal LEO,
I am not sure if this is good news or bad, but I had *exactly* the same first thought that you wrote…great minds, I trust…
Well yes. We know that the cop is the one who is mad about cows.
The judge is giving testimony, purely hypothetical and purely irrelevant, in these premises because it cannot be known what the animals are “thinking”.
If the victim was a deaf and dumb human being there could be no testimony as to whether or not the victim enjoyed it.
In the judges defence, there are no anti-bestiality laws in New Jersey according to other news reports.
So, it comes down to “does it matter what the victim thinks?”
In cruelty cases against animals the answer must be NO! because they cannot “think” in those terms necessary to make it a crime or not make it a crime.
Hence it is dicta and the judge therefore stretched it when he testified for the cows.
I did not have sexual relations with those calves. Bill
Must be a vast wing-ding conspiracy. Hill
To Dave:
You said: “I’m just saying that, from a legal point of view, there is no crime if the judge finds that no cruelty was committed.”
My question: How can cruelty be determined by the judge if he can’t question any of the victims? Maybe the cows enjoyed the sex–and maybe they didn’t. In this case the decision was left to the discretion of Judge Morley. Like Professor Turley, I also think it’s a “bizarre ruling.”
““that to have sex with another man (or woman) is as immoral as having sex with an animal.”
Dave,
Are you or are you not implying that homosexual sex is immoral, if less so than bestiality on the morality continuum?”
To Mike Spindell:
Way to quotemine. My actual comment was:
“I was not equating them, insofar as I’m not saying that to have sex with another man (or woman) is as immoral as having sex with an animal.”
You’ll notice that I’ve not once mentioned the morality of either same-sex sex or bestiality. What makes you think I’m implying that either of them are immoral?
I always thought a Guernsey was that which they would stretch and strap a Jersey on while being wheeled to a lambulance on the way to the veterinary horsepital to pull her breech-birth calf
Inveterate versifier indeed, Elaine you fit right in.
To FFLeo:
Some topical stories provide much inspiration for us inveterate versifiers.
Ms.M,
You are a brave and liberated woman a’vistin’ this thread. Very good poem.